Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: fiesh <weissch@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:20:20 +0000 (UTC)
On 2005-07-10, mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I do not ask for insidious reasons or for bigotry. But it is quite
> obvious that only such real numbers can exist and obey the
> order-axioms, which have at least one completely well-defined n-adic
> representation.
How funny, the BBP Formula actually _gives_ you a way to explicitly
calculate any digit of pi in hexadecimal representation.
Which, of course, contradicts your statement that pi "doesn't exist,"
unless you now argue that this criterion is not sufficient.
But we've had you contradicting yourself so often...
--
fiesh
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- References:
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Virgil
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: *** T. Winter
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Proginoskes
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Jiri Lebl
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- Prev by Date: Re: Relative Cardinality
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Previous by thread: Re: Relative Cardinality
- Next by thread: Re: Relative Cardinality
- Index(es):